51 Wn.2d 894, In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of JACK R. ALLEN, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY. as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent

[No. 34469. Department Two.      Supreme Court      December 12, 1957.]

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of JACK R.
          ALLEN, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY. as Superintendent of the
                State Penitentiary, Respondent.1

Application filed in the supreme court September 24, 1957, for a writ of habeas corpus. Denied; imposition of corrected sentences directed.

Jack R. Allen, pro se.

The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

The petitioner was found guilty of a violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2601-1, and RCW 9.31.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2342, and was sentenced to a term of twenty years on each of these counts. (He was, at the same time, sentenced to not more than fifteen years on a conviction for the crime of second-degree burglary [a violation of RCW 9.19.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2579].) These three offenses were charged in the same information, and the sentences were directed by the court to run concurrently.

Upon careful examination of the pleadings and supporting memorandum briefs submitted by the respective parties, we find the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus to be without merit.

Complaint has been made, however, that the sentence entered upon petitioner's conviction for escape, is erroneous under the provisions of RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2265 and prior decisions of this court. See In re Ashley v. Delmore (1956), 49 Wn. (2d) 1, 297 P. (2d) 958.

It has also been pointed out by the assistant attorney general that this same complaint may be addressed to petitioner's conviction of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's permission, and that the sentences under both of these convictions should have been ten years, rather than twenty, under the provisions of RCW 9.92.010. In re Klapproth v. Squier (1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430; In re Braun v. Belnap (1957), ante p. 892, 316 P. (2d) 472.

For the reasons indicated in the Klapproth and the Braun decisions,

1 Reported in 318 P. (2d) 957.

 Jan. 1958]         IN RE HOLOHAN v. RHAY.           895

the petitioner is to be returned to the court where judgment and sentence were entered, and that court is directed to impose corrected sentences for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2601-1, and RCW 9.31.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2342, in accordance with RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2265 and the cases cited.

This, of course, in no way affects the sentence on the conviction for second-degree burglary.

51 Wn.2d 895, In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of RALPH R. KING, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of MARTIN HOLOHAN, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent

[No. 34483. Department Two.      Supreme Court      January 30, 1958.]

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of RALPH
      R. KING, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, as Superintendent of the
                    State Penitentiary, Respondent.1

Application filed in the supreme court October 10, 1957, for a writ of habeas corpus. Denied; imposition of corrected sentence directed.

Ralph R. King, pro se.

The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

On June 15, 1956, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the "Crime of violating Section 9.54.020 of the revised code of Washington (commonly known as `joy riding')." Judgment and sentence was thereupon entered by the superior court, providing that petitioner be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty years.

For the reasons indicated in the per curiam opinion in In re Richey v. Squier, ante p. 38, 315 P. (2d) 638, filed September 17, 1957, the petitioner is to be returned to the court where his plea was entered, and that court is directed to impose a corrected sentence of not more than ten years, as provided by the properly applicable statute, i.e. RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., 2265.

Writ of habeas corpus denied; imposition of corrected sentence directed.

1 Reported in 320 P. (2d) 1102.